Jump to content

Sub_Octavian

Developers
  • Content Сount

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1

Community Reputation

1,569 Superb

About Sub_Octavian

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,633 profile views
  1. Because it there will be RU BB event arc, and it makes sense to supplement a new anticipated branch with new related content. What's the problem? All game nations without the Legendary commanders will get there eventually Come on, you're better than this. The majority of OP ships in the game are not even Russian And Kuznetsov talent (while being WIP btw, which means it's still to be tested) is compensated by being less epic. Also Kuznetsov has 1 less improved skill.
  2. Captains, Following your feedback on encountering 2 CVs per team on battle tier X (more information can be found here), we’ve worked on a possible solution. As a result, we decided to introduce a 3 minute soft cap for 1 CV per team on battle tier X, complemented by a hard cap for 2 CV. This means: It will no longer be possible to encounter 3 CVs at battle tier X under any circumstances; There will be much fewer games with 2 CVs per team on battle tier X (at the moment these battles constitute ~8% of all tier X battles worldwide); In some cases, when a ship is queued for 3+ minutes, 2 CVs per team will be possible, but we predict it to be a very rare case - unless the number of tier X CVs in the queue spikes. To clarify once again, this applies only to battle tier X (Tier VIII-X ships). On lower battle tiers this change is not critical, and not technically possible at the moment due to higher CV popularity. We know this change is important to you, so we will do our best to update the matchmaker ASAP, and if we can – even with a hotfix. But, as the change is currently undergoing QA, we cannot promise an exact date yet. Please stay tuned and follow the news. Thank you, good luck and fair seas!
  3. Dear players, Following your feedback and test results, we decided to stop live testing of Giulio Cesare at tier VI and abandon the initiative to individually re-balance premium ships, which were purchased in or directly marketed through our Premium store. Here is the reasoning: While many of you did support the idea of promoting more balance and fair play, most of you were not willing to support this if it means making changes to purchased premium ships. Many of you let us know that the perfect balance in each ship group is not as critical for you as we assumed; however, the confidence that the stats of purchased premium ships are not to be nerfed is much more important. It was not the only opinion voiced, but it was the most frequent in all discussions on all platforms. According to the majority of your opinions, having several over performing premium ships in the game is not an issue for you, given the fact that they are not sold directly and that they can be countered under the right circumstances; Testing Giulio Cesare on tier VI has shown that it can indeed be a balanced tier VI battleship, however, her gameplay experience changed dramatically. The same is true for alternative rebalance options (e.g. nerf on tier V). As the proposed initiative was based on community feedback, and achieving absolutely perfect balance in each ship group is not a purpose in itself (and it is not really possible anyway, because ships have vastly different play styles, pros and cons, and players have vastly different skill levels), we decided to cancel it. There are not many ships like Giulio Cesare in the game, and most of them are quite old; our balancing process has significantly improved since release, and there is no indication that we will have many such ships in the game. However, if they do appear, we will take appropriate action. For example, as we do now, stop direct sales and limit their distribution to very special occasions, so that their presence in battles is minimal. Despite the fact that we never had a rule which stated "premium ships are not nerfed individually", we indeed did not do it before and we understand why many of you assumed that there is such a rule. It should be noted that even the ships purchased in or marketed through Premium store are a part of a big game we all play. That means our decision does not isolate any ship from systematic changes applied to a group of ships on common basis or to the whole game. For example, a change to the Radar mechanics affects all ships equipped with Radar, a Smoke mechanics change affects all ships with smoke, etc. We sincerely thank you for your opinions and feedback. Good luck and fair seas!
  4. Eh, no? The test start was announced when it was approved. And we're not "going to nerf them". We're going to test various changes to GC, while analyzing the stats and community sentiments, to see if we need to do anything and how. I mean, you can paint us evil geniuses sitting in the basement and plotting how to sell stuff and then nerf it (for lulz, obviously), but that's not how it works. So? The game was perfectly fine before boxes, and if they are banned in the industry, the game will be perfectly fine without them. Fortunately neither WoWS economy, nor WoWS progression system are built around loot boxes mechanics. It's a component, which will be dropped, if needed, and replaced with one of the alternative solutions, if needed. Both as a dev and a player, I think this issue is blown out of proportion, thanks to several games that centered everything in their game design around this mechanics, pushing it to absurd levels. Thanks, dear industry colleagues, I guess P.S. WoWS is not a game played by kids, jFYI. Our audience is adult and mature, and I believe, capable of making adult and mature decisions. I am here because I want to contribute to the discussion and engage with the players; because I believe that it is important for the game to become better. I respect our players, but I tend to say what I think, and accept everyone's right to agree or disagree, and to give their own argument. Not sure what should I deduct from your statement or how "more responsive" I should be. Just in case, to avoid any misunderstanding: I will happily ignore posts like this in future, as non-constructive and non-contributing. With all due respect, just hope it will save everyone's time. *** Thank you all for the discussion. It was really useful, and I hope I did not came rude or something - sorry if my language was too direct. I don't think there is anything more to say on the topic now, but everything I heard or confirmed here, will be taken into account, and be sure that your opinions, even if I personally disagree with some of them, matter a lot. Have a great day!
  5. Well you are reading something else then. I did not blame players. As I said, we're responsible for any changes to the game. But if you think constant "oh my god, they nerfed it, now my wallet is closed" pressure during live testing any premium ship makes it easier to balance, you're wrong. That is not the most important point, but it's a point - a lot of players actively push for OP premium ships even when they don't participate in live testing, and a lot of players perceive OP ships as "comfortable" forgetting that their comfort sometimes means casually slapping all other ships in a group with less effort. That's just a fact, and no one it to blame here.
  6. I am sorry, but I don't see anything I should apologize for. First of all, no action has been taken, and no decision has been made. Second, distribution method does not matter. Some people purchased the ship originally, some got it for free, some got it from 1 crate, and some from dozens of crates. I don't consider rare ships in the crates "unethical", and don't understand why I should, tbh. That's the way to allow collectors to get them without overflowing the game with them. Some players want to have full set of ships, and of course, for crates, any ship like this is a unique item, so it's a win-win. Not even mentioning all other contents. The timing does not look good, I agree (recent sales + CV rework), but then you should also understand that we announced testing start - it can take months to make any conclusions, and there will be no perfect time to test it; there always be an excuse to postpone this question.
  7. Sub_Octavian

    CV's need to go killing the game.

    With all due respect, you should invest some time in CV before talking about unlimited planes, because, as I play literally the same game you do, my planes don't feel unlimited, and my pilots never enjoy flying over cruisers like Seattle. And if it's AA-specced or in a group with other ships, my pilots usually don't live to tell the story...
  8. If you follow my activity you probably know I'm all for admitting the screw-ups and working on resolving their consequences. But apologies for 4-5 premiums turning out to be OP from literally dozens and dozens of well balanced-ships? My apologies, but I don't know any PvP live game where the unit balance is perfect at any period of time. I also don't know any game design case in the industry of MMO where you don't have to make adjustments from time to time. Finally, it's very hard to feel sorry for...testing. I think it's super important to admit your mistakes, but I also believe automatically admitting anything not popular or controversial a mistake and apologizing for it is...a mistake, and will only devalue any kind of open community interactions.
  9. Sorry, but I don't understand all this semi-threatening "I will put my $100 elsewhere"? I fully realize that paying players like you pay the bills. I value that, and thankful for that. Why is this an argument for game health discussion though? Why do you think it contributes to the weight of your statements? Should I, according to this logic, disregard the opinions of non-paying users? Or pay the attention depending on the check size? Sorry, I don't think it's fair. As for your points: As I said, any alternative ways after the general sales are gone are not really changing anything. The majority of ship sales are generated in the beginning, not 2 years later, and there is no point in hoping "we don't sell it anymore, it's fine". No, it's not fine. It's either accepting the fact there will noticeable % of OP prems in queue (a viable option, by the way) or not accepting it; EULA already allows the changes to the game. As I said before, I'm not going to advocate for any changes using EULA as a tool. It's a legal fail safe, not the ground for community relations, and I don't know how hard should I hit my head against a wall to say "we will do this change, because EULA tells us we can"; Talking dates, I don't think there is a point in "we can adjust the ship for a period of six months". On the contrary, if we would create some kind of rules set I would (just theory here) add something like "this ship stats won't be changed in a negative way for at least 1 year after released", because you need to establish bulk stats and it overall gives better confidence in premium ships. But I doubt it's a viable way in the first place; Why we're discussing CVs or subs here? They have nothing to do with the topic of discussion, as well as balancing ships doesn't interfere with other dev processes. Should we revert all buffs we did to various ships and stop considering any other buffs because "CVs and subs are more important"? I don't fairly think so. And yet again, thanks for letting me know about other games. I know you can spend your money elsewhere. I know you can play other games. I'm not here to tell you "give us your hard earned money!" or "spend your life playing only our game". It's your choice. I respect any personal choice. So you can of course keep bringing this up, but I don't know what to do with this statement in discussion. If you think such statements as "I will go play No Man's Sky" invalidate my points, they don't. I don't mind you sharing these thoughts, sure, but they are not really helpful (IMO). Also, that's not fair discussion, because I most likely won't share my personal opinion of NMS and it's "comeback", as well as on other games - don't feel it's ethical in my position.
  10. Huh? WG doesn't want to hurt their sales, and I'm not "playing dumb" about it. Also, a wonderful revelation for you: no company wants to hurt their sales.
  11. Most likely the approach that will emerge from GC testing will be universal and will set a precedent for foreseeable future. It won't be fair to touch GC, and not touch the ships you listed. It won't be fair not to touch GC and touch the ships you listed. That's why we're taking our time with the test and that's why I said several times we will take this decision very seriously, and all concerns and feedback will be taken into account. Thanks for the solid and reasonable argument. I don't expect OP prems to really wash out of MM queue significantly compared to current state, though. The massive start sales and good player retention mean that they will remain played for years, and their episodic appearance in crates or any other special events doesn't affect it - this inflow is too small anyways. As for crates sales, I don't know, but it's a valid question we research atm. The second question would be: if such ships are super desirable drivers, are they desirable because of rarity (no other way to add them to the collection) or their battle performance (they are considered very strong).
  12. Hey guys, Just a few clarifications: 1. I personally don't have anything against GC, that's..a weird thought. I personally love the principle in game balance when a player can choose and play any ship from a particular group, and show more or less same efficiency, under condition that the ship is used properly. GC and several other premium ships show considerably better performance relatively to player's skill. This is not good for game balance health and it makes other ships in their respective group look and perform worse. And when that's just 1-2 such ships in the group it does not make any sense to try to buff the whole group instead of tuning down the "overperformers". 2. That said, game balance health is not the only factor, and my personal views are not a serious argument when making such a serious decision. For example, if the majority of players are really fine with 5-6 OP premium ships (surely this ship group will grow over years, but looks like our balancing got better over years, too - most of OP ships are quite old) AND if we see that small portion of OP premium ships do not affect the playerbase experience in a bad way - well, so be it. It can be a flaw for some, but if generally people are fine with this situation, and it's not damaging the game, why not. It's not like we want to push the changes no matter what. However, to determine the objective pros and cons is a challenge, especially with so much emotion involved. 3. I saw this opinion several times, so better clarify it again: nobody in the team really cares about selling these premium ships again. From "$$$" point of view it's much better to leave them alone and use on super rare occasions as a side bonus, as all premium ships generate their overwhelming majority of sales when they release. We're totally fine if ships like GC, Kami or Belfast appear only in tiny quantities (because some people just want them in their collection) and never see general sales. Also, I really don't think it's appropriate to claim that we follow "Sell OP ship, nerf it, sell new OP ship" scenario. We have dozens of premium ships in the game, and only 5-6 of them are really OP. That's normal balance deviation, same as with non-premium ships. If revenue was the main factor, we would probably just release a lot of OP Tier VIII ships - they're the most expensive and the most popular anyways. But there was never an intention to release an OP ship. Do players want OP ships? Well, it's an open question. Just an example, though, from the times of GC live test: Not blaming anyone, the balance is our responsibility, but there was and there is constant pressure for any premium ship to be OP from vocal part of community. Not absolutely disgustingly OP, but still OP. I often see the sentiment that objectively OP is considered 'normal and comfortable", while objectively good considered "meh" and okayish considered "bad". Most nerfs to live tested ship generate quite a lot of "my wallet is closed now", "I won't play this" and "I won't buy this" reactions. The problem is that OP ships surely feel much better and satisfying to play, and even acknowledging "I play this ship, and it's too strong" is a challenge for many players. 4. No decision has been made, and I really ask some of you to stop treating it as a fact. Any scenario is possible, and it will depend on testing results and our analysis. Can GC be tested as a nerf tier V? Yes. Can the plan to nerf her and other premium ships be ditched? Yes. This is what testing is for. And sorry, but I cannot feel sorry for testing or trying anything, as well as for openly informing the players about what and why we do. I cannot support the logic "the fact that they test a nerf is an insult" and don't see any constructive discussion coming out of it. 5. There was no policy that premiums ships should not be nerfed, and there was no promise that they cannot be nerfed. I understand why some people treat this as a broken promise - because we never tested anything like this seriously. But what I always said is that we avoid doing this at all costs - and that we did, and still do, and will continue doing. 6. I find both "they can do whatever they want, according to EULA" and "I don't care about EULA" highly irrelevant. We have EULA. It's a legal fail safe any game or software has. We're not going to use it as a tool to interact with you - the players. If we don't agree on something we will discuss it. If you are not happy with something, we will try to find a better solution. I sincerely thank all people who defend our decisions, plans or intentions for game balance, but we do not base it on EULA and I don't see that we ever will. So let's stop wasting our time discussing it. For me, as a developer, EULA is like a small personal nuke. It's good that it is somewhere in basement, but I don't ever want to see it in action, and don't consider it seriously as a way to interact with the world 7. I also think, for the sake of minimal objectivity, it's worth mentioning that we seek to provide better experience for premium ships owners, instead of sticking to "not to be changed" argument. With what I said about sales in mind, we individually buffed a lot of premium ships simply because we wanted people who support us to enjoy them for years, even if meta changes. There was next to none "economical" benefit in doing so. SIms: buffed main battery reload, improved torpedo armament; Prinz Eugen: buffed plating, added heal; Indianapolis: buffed concealment and Radar, improved rudder shift and maneuverability; Atlanta: added Radar; Atago: added heal, buffed rudder shift; Hood: improved sigma and AP fuse; Warspite: improved turret traverse; Tirpitz: improved armor, added fighter plane, improved secondaries; Ashitaka: improved AP; Kii: improved main battery reload and torpedoes. And as far as I remember, all these buffs were quite welcome. Everybody loves buffs! Too bad proper "balancing" means using both + and -. I don't know how to approach any further premium ship buffs with the current sentiment, to be honest. A ship is not a car or mobile phone. A ship interacts with all other ships in the game, and its player interacts with all other players in a match. A ship is not a standalone product - the game is a product and any ship is a component of it. It's not the only way to look at it, but it's perfectly viable. And to OP: sorry, but your definition of bait and switch is not compatible with any online game which is alive. It's convenient to make emotionally-loaded argument or bash us publicly, but that's it. Thank you, and see you soon!
  13. Can we please have a waterline episode on Giulio Cesare? Jeez even your absent these days. Sorry if you are burnt out, I get burnt out too, but I at least respond when I am being called upon.  This wouldn't be a hot topic if we had everyone who owned the ship testing it you know. Graf Zepplin was done right and now we could use the same thing for Giulio Cesare.  I know we don't own the ships, but at least would be nice to test them and provide feedback on them for changes such as tiering. I like Star Wars as well, but now your acting like old Luke Skywalker. Come on Sub give us some input on these tests it would be nice thanks.

  14. Sub_Octavian

    New AA mechanics explained

    Hello everyone! Update 0.8.0 has been released recently, and of course there are a lot of questions, specifically about the new anti-air defense mechanic. In this article we're going to discuss all details about 0.8.0 AA - how it works, it interacts with commander skills and upgrades, and everything else. Please note that the CV rework introduced in 0.8.0 will undergo a lot of tweaking and balancing, so the information here may get outdated at some point by subsequent changes. How it used to be pre-0.8.0 In brief planes got shot down with a certain probability (dependent on AA potential), and the planes, in fact did not have effective individual hit points. At the same time, AA mounts did not have minimal range, so AA generally grew a lot stronger closer to the ship. It caused two issues: Probability-based and erratic plane destruction used to create too much RNG - sometimes squadrons got wiped out in a moment, sometimes AA seemed to have zero effect; Lack of minimal firing range interrupted with creating proper AA support specs, so that the ships could cover their allies properly, but would not be invulnerable at closer range; How it works now 1.Each plane has individual hit points. If a planes 'dips' into AA range, it will be damaged according to the respective AA strength, and the damage will be recorded (so it will be easier to shoot down later) indicated by the green/yellow/red HP bars. 2.Each AA group has a minimum range now, so short, medium and long range AA on one ship do not overlap, which gives much more options for balancing the AA in general and gives a lot of potential for AA variety. For example, let's look at Baltimore AA. Close range is 0,1-1,5 km, medium is 1,5-3,5, long range covers 3,5-5,8 km. 3. Now there is "hit chance" parameter for AA. It allows for a better fine tuning of AA mounts per class and tier - usually it is higher for more modern ships, which represents more modern AA fire control systems. Hit chance affects flak bursts and constant DPS. 4. AA damage is dealt in two ways now: Constant DPS in the respective AA range. The damage dealt is DPS multiplied with Hit chance, so, if you have 100 DPS and 70% hit chance, you will deal 70 damage per second. This damage is being dealt to each squadron in the AA range (and it's not being spread - each squadron receives full DPS). It also worth noting that within the squadron it is being dealt to a randomly chosen plane, one at a time (basically AA quickly shoots at all planes in a squadron, plane by plane). This is why some of your planes are getting damaged a bit earlier, and some - a bit later in constant DPS area. Flak bursts (for medium and long range AA only). A flak burst is a specific volume in a three dimensional space, and if a plane physically gets inside it, the damage (usually very large) is applied to it (that exact plane). Actual average number of flak bursts is: base flak bursts parameter, multiplied by Hit chance. Flak bursts appear on the calculated squadron path, within the specified zones (see the picture). Mostly the bursts will be concentrated in narrow A zone directly on squadron path, and if it's full of bursts already, the rest will go to the side B zones (which makes maneuvering more challenging). More about these flak bursts Please note once again that the info here, especially balance values, is subject to change. Flak bursts appear each 2 seconds. The burst "physical" size depends on AA mount caliber - larger caliber guns give bigger bursts. Zone width (X) depends on squadron speed. It will be quite wide (X1) if current squadron speed is high, and it will be narrow (X2) if the planes are going at minimal speed. That means that using throttle is very important for dodging flak bursts. Effective flak burst amount, as mentioned before is base flak burst parameter multiplied with Hit chance. Normal (Gauss) distribution is applied, and the minimal burst size is symmetrical to the maximum. That means that with 10 base burst size and 70% hit chance, it will mostly be 7 bursts, 10 is maximum number and 4 is minimum. With a single ship AA, 80% of flak bursts (but not more than 6) is being placed in zone A. The rest goes to side B zones. Flak bursts do not overlap each other. Let's check Baltimore once again (the scaling on these pictures is simplified). Long range AA has spawned 5 bursts, so 5 go to A zone and 1 goes to B zone. Medium range AA has spawned 11 bursts, so A zone gets 6 bursts (of lesser size) and 5 bursts go to B. If there are several ships firing, the rules are slightly different: up to 8 bursts can be placed in A zone combined and up to 10 bursts - in A zones. The most powerful burst are being chosen in this case. This limit gives at least slight chance for attack even against a strong AA group. If a single AA group has multiple squadrons in range, flak bursts that would have been in B zone otherwise, are distributed into A zones so that AA covers all squadrons. That said, long and medium range AA still do not overlap, so if one enemy squadron is at medium range, and the other is at long range, that means each of them will interact with its respective AA group without any mixing and overlapping. AA reinforcement and visual hints AA can be reinforced two ways in battle. 1.Defensive AA consumable: constant DPS and flak bursts damage increases, and the bursts turn red. Regular bursts are orange, and defensive AA bursts are red. Usually the increase is x2 for cruisers and x3 for destroyers. 2. AA sector reinforcement (via special menu bound to "~" and "O" keys). Constant DPS in the chosen sector is increased by 25-60% (depends on class and shown in the Port) at the expense of the other sector. AA tracers in the prioritized sector turn red. AA sectors don't have any transition states, they are either reinforced, normal or weakened. Changing the state takes time, so you should do it in advance. If a squadron is at the border between two sectors, the sector it is in is determined by the amount of planes; if 7 planes are in the right sector, and 2 are in the left, the squadron is considered to be in the right. Skills and upgrades Upgrades AA mod.1 - slot 3 (available from tier 5). Gives +2 to flak burst base value for long and medium range AA. Especially useful for the ships with low amount of bursts. AA mod.2 - slot 6 (available from tier 9). Increases both constant DPS at all ranges and flak bursts damage by 15%. A very powerful AA buff, but at the cost of other efficient upgrades in the slot. Skills (I) Direction center for fighters - +1 Fighter when you use the respective consumable; (III) Basic firing training - Increases constant DPS at all ranges by 10% (and increases rate of fire of all secondaries and main guns of caliber up to and including 139mm by 10%); (IV) Advanced firing training - Increases flak burst damage by 15% (and increases range of fire of all secondaries and main guns of caliber up to and including 139mm by 20%); (IV) Manual Fire Control for AA Armament - increases the efficiency of sector reinforcing by 20% (which means 150% from 125%, for example) and reduces the time for switching by 20%. So how do I maximize my AA defense? First of all, AA reinforcement influences only constant DPS, so if you want to play around it, you better pick a ship with a lot of constant DPS. Additionally keep in mind that the switching time is different per class - 5 seconds for destroyers, 10 seconds for cruisers, 12 seconds for battleships and 15 seconds for carriers. Using this mechanic will require extra attention from you, but in return you will increase the type of damage that is constant and impossible to dodge. With Manual Fire Control your damage multiplier gets even more serious - x1,5 for cruisers and battleships, x1,8 for destroyers and x1,92 for carriers. What's even better, you can maximize this DPS with Basic Firing Trainng - and that skill is useful for most destroyers and secondary-specced battleships. Advanced firing training is especially useful for the ships with low constant DPS and high amount of flak bursts, and it combines well with AA mod.1. As with Basic Firing Training, this skill is beneficial for secondaries and small caliber main guns. Direction center for fighters can be very influential on low level, where the fighter squadron is small. Overall, we would recommend it only as the last priority, or when you have 1 extra point to spend. What are the best maneuvers when being attacked by different squadrons? Attack planes deal the least amount of damage, but they are very fast, agile and relatively easy to aim. Their rocket dispersion is different per game nation, so you should typically not expose broadside to the USN attack planes, and try to avoid going bow or aft against IJN and RN planes. Dive bombers are usually slower and it's hard for them to adjust their aim while in the attack run. That means quick maneuvering is the key, and, as their dispersion pattern is usually long, they deal the most damage with bow or aft attack runs. Torpedo bombers have different attack run patterns per nation, but they have one common thing - they always try to catch you broadside to maximize the number of hits. USN torpedo bombers usually carry more torpedoes per attack, but they have more challenging aiming, so evasive maneuvers in advance will make their life much more difficult. IJN torpedo bombers usually carry torpedoes with relatively long range, so beware of long drops and pay attention even if they do something on the edge of your visibility. Remember about other enemies while dodging CV attacks. Sometimes it's better to take some damage from a CV instead of exposing your broadside to its BB allies. And as a destroyer, don't forget about "P" button which turns AA off. You typically have great concealment, and being spotted late can be more advantageous than firing your AA immediately. If you appear close enough, the enemy squadron can easily fly overhead and miss the first attack run. We hope this article was useful and you have a better and clearer understanding of AA mechanics now. Thank you!
  15. Dear players, It's been less than a week since update 0.8.0 release - a major, and probably the biggest change in the game yet, CV rework. We want to share the first list of fixes, changes and tweaks that are to be implemented to improve new CV and counter-CV gameplay. But first of all we sincerely thank you for your feedback and game activity, as well as apologize for any stress and inconvenience that you experienced due to such a massive game change Please note that all information in this post is preliminary. 1. Critical changes and fixes that we're working on right now (to be implemented within 0.8.0 in "hotfix" update ASAP). Reduce the excessive efficiency of IJN tier X CV Hakuryu; Reduce the excessive efficiency of IJN Torpedo Bombers (reduce flooding chance, introduce spread debuff when maneuvering); Resolve the "F-spam" issue, when a CV can just recall its squadron at any time without considerable penalties (increase the vulnerability time for the squadron after recall so that players can shoot down some planes before it completely disengages); Do overall AA balancing: shift a part of damage from flak bursts to constant DPS. Flak bursts proved to be an interesting aspect of AA. While they can deal disproportional amount of damage, avoiding them often results in completely insufficient damage to the planes; Do an overall Attack Planes vs. Destroyers balancing. While this is an important thing to do, we would like to indicate that most players seem to underestimate the power of manual AA activation ([P] by default). Due to great DD concealment, if often makes sense to turn AA off until spotted. A DD spotted at minimal range is a lot harder to hit with the first attack run even with rockets. Although, this trick does not remove the need for further balancing; Do additional Premium CV and UK CV (unreleased) balancing; Remove the inconsistency between Des Moines and Salem in close/mid-range AA; 2. Changes and improvements that we work on now in the timeframe of next updates (0.8.1 and beyond). Improve plane reserves UI (information should be better presented); Improve AA sector UI (better usability); Do additional balancing for individual ships, armament, skills and upgrades, as the statistical data is being accumulated; Clear the minimap for non-CV ships (remove the unnecessary info about returning planes, etc); Finish the development for CV bots (Cooperative Battles); 3. Open questions and concerns to be researched in more detail and addressed if needed (no specific update planned yet, but it may change). The amount and quality of CV spotting in the new meta; MM limits (our ideal limit is 1 CV per team, very few cases of 2 CV (and always 1 at tier X, but right now the limit is 3 across the board): we would like to change the limits where/when possible. As indicated before, these are the first plans after several days of release. We will keep monitoring your feedback and update you about any further changes. Thank you, good luck, and fair seas!
×